"When I hear about cases like this I always wonder how defence barristers morally manage defending such vile people. I could not do it"
twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/835025280934739968

Judge fights back tears as couple jailed over sickening abuse

Father's decade of benefit cheating

Merseyside police: Sentencing of Sandra Jones and Michael Miszczak

"Detective Chief Inspector Chris Sephton said: “The victims in this case should be commended for their bravery in coming forward and supporting the investigation. They have shown great strength in giving evidence which has resulted in the conviction and lengthy sentence that has been passed today. I hope that their determination serves as inspiration for others."

I wonder if the fraud accompanied more serious crime or taught a lesson that was stored up for future reference.

From the Mirror
During the trial David Potter, defending Miszczak, and Bridget Bailey, defending Jones, suggested the girls were “fantasists” and had made up all the accusations.

One victim was accused of taking some of the allegations from the book ‘A Child Called It’, an account of child abuse by an American author which one of the victims was “obsessed with” as a child.

Interested to know if the prosecution provided any evidence other than the word of the complainants; who may or may not be telling the truth. And how did the jury know the complainants were not fantanists. A "fair trial" should have all this explained. In most of life now, many institutions and professionals are expected to explain how they come to their conclusions.

Maybe the defence lacked in this case. Who knows. But the UK is a very dangerous place to live from what I see. Only need to walk past a person and then be accused and then end up at a trial.

Excellent post, John Marsh, and I agree with every word.

I see that some twitter people are blindly following MWT the self-styled "The Investigator" mainly agreeing with all that he said, without knowing a single thing about the defence in this case.

As with all of these historic sex cases, there was a huge amount of evidence that the jury did not see.

Of note is the fact that as usual, the media reporters at trial chose not to add into their articles the massive provable lies told by both complainants during cross-examination - which the jury ignored.

Personally I always wonder how defence barristers morally manage defending such vile people as those accused of blackmail.

Someone has to do it of course and some barristers are so brilliant they get the accused off even though he is a pathologically liar.